KR890702152A

KR890702152A - Expert System for Process Control

Info

Publication number: KR890702152A
Application number: KR1019890700948A
Authority: KR
Inventors: 디 스카이릭 리챠드; 오 드 캐리아 프랭크
Original assignee: 원본 미기재; 이.아이.듀퐁 드 네모아 앤드 캄파니
Priority date: 1987-09-30
Filing date: 1988-09-30
Publication date: 1989-12-23
Also published as: BR8807224A; AU2606788A; DE3856379T2; AU618769B2; EP0335957A1; ATE186789T1; JPH02501420A; EP0335957A4; WO1989003092A1; EP0335957B1; DE3856379D1

Abstract

An expert system wherein the rules are of three classes: 1) retrieval rules (210), which each associate one of several attributes to an object in accordance with the values of inputs; 2) analysis rules (220), which selectively associate an attribute with an object, and which are somewhat analogous to the natural-language inference rules which would be used in communications between domain experts; and 3) action rules (230), which selectively carry out the output and control actuation options, based on the attributes associated with objects by the other rules. This system permits certain rules to be revised at any time without requiring the specialized skills of a "knowledge engineer". The expert system can be used in conjunction with an integrated system for process control (150), which itself can exist as a separate, discrete entity. This integrated system for process control contains a process supervisor procedure (130) (which is preferably the top-level procedure) which can define parameters for one or more controller systems (or control procedures). The supervisor procedure can also be configured as a modular software structure with modules which can be revised by a user at any time, without significantly interrupting the operation of the process supervisor. Users can define or redefine modules by editing highly constrained templates (115, 812).

Description

Expert System for Process Control

본 내용은 요부공개 건이므로 전문내용을 수록하지 않았음Since this is an open matter, no full text was included.

제 1 도는, 새로운 공정제어시스템을 본 출원에 포함된 여러가지 혁신적 특성에 의해 제공된 엑스퍼트 시스템 능력과 합체시키기 위해 바람직하게 사용된 하드웨어와 프로시쥬어의 구조를 개략적으로 보여준다. 제 2 도는, 사용하기 바람직한 엑스퍼트 시스템 구조 내의 정보의 흐름의 개략도이다. 제 3 도는, 현재 바람직한 것으로 여겨지는 실시예에서의 검색 법칙을 위해 사용되는 템플릿을, 템플릿에 엔터되어 온 검색 법칙의 견본과 함께 나타낸다.1 schematically shows the structure of hardware and procedures that are preferably used to incorporate a new process control system with expert system capabilities provided by the various innovative features included in this application. 2 is a schematic diagram of the flow of information in an expert system structure that is preferred for use. 3 shows a template used for the search law in an embodiment that is presently considered to be preferred, along with a sample of the search law that has been entered into the template.

Claims

A processor coupled to receive input from a plurality of sources; A collection of inference laws that can be executed by the processor; And one or more outlet footings connected to the processor to provide the footings according to the inputs received in the infoot channel; The processor may be provided in accordance with user instructions, which are not necessarily fluent in computer language, and by modifying the law of reasoning in a restricted format that allows the user to easily understand the law of reasoning by an authorized user. A system that allows changing the law of executable inference within such a limited substantive natural language format.

With law generation logic that provides the user with functional structures for up to three different law forms (when activated), any can be easily understood by the user and not limited to computer language. The rule generation logic provides a functional structure for all of the above rules in a format that is not user-modifiable except for the execution of the law in which the user input according to the functional structure defines a single expert system. A computer-based system that translates into the complete set possible.

With law-generating logic that provides the user with a functional structure for the law according to a defined set of predefined forms (when it is activated), either can be easily understood by the user, not necessarily fluent in computer language, The rule generation logic provides a functional structure for all of the above rules in a format that is not user-modifiable except for the limited portion, and the rule generation logic defines a single expert system for user input according to the functional structure. A system that translates into a complete executable set of laws.

Providing inputs (including numeric inputs) to the processor from one or more sources, executing (in the processor) a collection of inference laws executable on the inputs, and receiving input channels Providing an out foot to one or more out foot channels in accordance with the foot and in accordance with the law of inference; And further, when instructed by an authorized user, displaying the law of inference in a format understandable by the user that is not necessarily fluent in computer language, and in a limited substantive natural language format. Allowing the user to change the executable law by editing the law.

Either one is not necessarily fluent in computer language, but is easily understood by the user and provided in a format that is not user-modifiable, except for limited portions, in the above, interactive interface template for inference law. Repeatedly displaying to the user; Translating the user input into an executable set of rules defining one expert system according to the template; The format in which the user input is later displayed back to the user for modification and subsequent user modifications to the input may be translated again to redefine the executable set of rules and thus redefine the expert system. Storing the user input in a format that can be separated from the executable set of laws.

Either is a format that is not necessarily fluent in computer language and is not easily user-modifiable except in limited parts and in formats that can be easily understood by the user, Providing a functional structure; Translating the user input in accordance with the functional structure into an executable complete set of laws defining an expert system.

Either is a format that can be easily understood by the user that is not necessarily fluent in computer language and a format that is not easily user-modifiable, except for limited portions, for the purposes of a limited set of prescriptive laws. Providing a functional structure; Translating user input according to the functional structure into an executable complete set of laws defining an expert system; And storing both the executable law set and the user input in accordance with the functional structure.

Either one is not necessarily fluent in computer language, but a format that can be easily understood by the user and a format that is not easily user-modifiable, except for limited portions, to implement functional structures for a limited set of predetermined forms of law. Providing a template to a user in a conversational interface; Translating user input according to the functional structure into an executable complete set of laws defining an expert system; And storing both the set of rules executable according to the functional structure and the user input.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein the law generating logic is selectable: to provide a functional structure for a new law; Providing, by command of an authorized user, a functional structure corresponding to the user input that generated the current version of expert system.

4. The method of claim 3, wherein the law generating logic is selectable: to provide a functional structure for a new law; Providing, by command of an authorized user, a functional structure corresponding to the user input that generated the current version of expert system.

3. The system of claim 2, wherein the law generation logic provides a functional structure to a user for rules according to up to four predetermined forms (when it is activated).

4. The system of claim 3, wherein the law generation logic provides a functional structure to a user for a law according to a predetermined form of four or more terms (when it is activated).

10. The method of claim 1, wherein the individual laws are presented to the user as a functional structure with a substantial natural language format, which is technically fluent in any predetermined field, but not easily fluent in computer language, which is readily understood by the user. System.

The system of claim 1, wherein the user-changeable portion of the functional structure is different to the user than other portions of the functional structure.

4. The system of claim 3, wherein the user-changeable portion of the functional structure is different to the user than other portions of the functional structure.

The system of claim 1, wherein the set of laws define a substantial real-time expert control system.

3. The system of claim 2, wherein the law generating logic verifies that each data value referenced by any of the individual laws is well defined.

The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is coupled to provide control parameter definitions to a controller in a manufacturing process that is substantially running.

7. The method of claim 6, wherein the defined set of predetermined law forms consists of up to four predetermined forms.

8. The method of claim 7, wherein the defined set of predetermined law forms consists of up to four predetermined forms.

The method of claim 8, wherein the defined set of predetermined law forms consists of up to four predetermined forms.

5. The method of claim 4, wherein the substantially natural language format is technically skilled in a predetermined field while either is readily understood by a user who is not necessarily fluent in computer language.

6. The method of claim 5, wherein said substantially natural language format is technically skilled in a predetermined field while either can be easily understood by a user who is not necessarily fluent in computer language.

7. The method of claim 6, wherein said substantially natural language format is technically skilled in a predetermined field while either is readily understood by a user who is not necessarily fluent in computer language.

8. The method of claim 7, wherein said substantially natural language format is technically skilled in a predetermined field while either is readily understood by a user who is not necessarily fluent in computer language.

10. The method of claim 8, wherein the substantially natural language format is technically skilled in a predetermined field while either is readily understood by a user who is not necessarily fluent in computer language.

6. The method of claim 5, wherein the user-changeable portion of the template appears different to the user than other portions.

10. The method of claim 9, wherein the user-changeable portion of the template appears different to the user than other portions.

5. The method of claim 4, defining a substantially real time expert control method of the set of laws.

7. The method of claim 6 wherein the translation step ensures that each data value referenced by any of the laws is well defined.

8. The method of claim 7, wherein the translation step ensures that each data value referenced by any of the laws is well defined.

9. The method of claim 8, wherein the translation step ensures that each data value referenced by any of the laws is well defined.

A collection of inference laws consisting of search rules and non-search laws, each of which includes a standard for selectively combining an attribute with an object according to an input value; It has a processor connected to receive inputs from an input channel, to implement a set of inference laws on the input, and thus to provide the outputs to one output channel, so that the non-search laws are The ability to selectively combine one attribute with an object based on the object / attribute combination created by it, optionally execute an external command based on the object / attribute combination, and a function selected from the group consisting of the two combinations To perform each; Wherein the processor is programmed to execute non-search laws while not performing any pure arithmetic tests.

A collection of inference laws consisting of search rules and non-search laws, each of which includes a standard for selectively combining an attribute with an object according to an infut value; And a processor connected to receive inputs from the input channel, to execute the collection of inference laws on the input, and to provide the outputs to one output channel accordingly, wherein the non-searching rules are Optionally combining one object with one attribute according to one or more attributes associated with the object, optionally executing an external command according to one or more attributes associated with the object, and a combination of the two Perform each of the functions selected from the group consisting of; The processor is not programmed to execute the non-search laws while performing any pure arithmetic test; Wherein the search laws are executed each time the set of inference laws are executed, but not all of the other laws are necessarily executed each time the inference laws are executed.

A set of inference laws and a processor, the set of inference rules according to which search rules each contain a standard for selectively combining one attribute with one object, and an object by different laws One or more other attributes combined with one or more other attributes combined with one or more other attributes, each with logic to combine one object with one attribute, and one or more other attributes combined with objects by other laws. Consists of operating rules, each with logic to execute external instructions; The processor is coupled to receive inputs from one input channel, to execute the collection of inference laws on the input, and thus to provide the outputs to one output channel, the processor being analyzed Executes the law, but is not connected to any pure arithmetic test, nor does it execute the above law; A system in which the processor executes the law of operation but is not connected to evaluate any logical representation with three or more input terms.

It is composed of a set of inference laws and a processor, the set of inference laws, the ability to selectively combine one object and one attribute according to the infut value, and the object / attribute created by the rules Non-operational laws, each providing a function of selectively combining one attribute with an object according to the combination and a criterion for performing one function selected from the group consisting of a combination of these two functions; It consists of the laws of operation each having logic for selectively executing an external instruction according to the attribute / object combination created by the laws, and the processor receives the input from the input channel and the reasoning rule on the input. Are coupled to provide an outer footing to the outer footing channel, such that none of the non-operational laws allow execution of an external instruction procedure, and none of the operating laws apply one attribute. The system cannot be combined with an object in.

A set of inference laws and a processor, the set of inference rules comprising: search rules each including a standard for selectively combining an attribute with an object according to an infut value; Analysis laws each having logic for selectively combining one attribute with one object according to the object / attribute combination created by the above rules; It consists of laws of operation each having logic for selectively executing an external instruction according to the object / attribute combination created by the laws, the processor receiving input from an input channel and inferring the inference to the input. It is implemented to execute a set of laws, and thus to provide an outfoot to the outfoot channel, so that none of the search and analysis laws can enable the execution of an external command procedure, and none of the rules of operation are an attribute. Cannot be combined with one object, and the laws of operation do not require any logical operations other than testing for the coupling between one attribute and one object, respectively, and the laws of analysis are essentially natural language inference. A system that implements laws.

A set of inference laws and a processor, the set of inference laws comprising: a function of selectively combining one attribute with one object according to an input value; A non-operation that provides the ability to selectively combine one attribute with an object according to the object / attribute combination created by the above rules, and to provide criteria for performing a function selected from the group consisting of a combination of these two functions, respectively. Laws and; It consists of the laws of operation each having logic for selectively executing an external instruction according to the object / attribute combination created by the laws, the processor receiving input from an input channel and inferring the inference to the input. It executes a set of laws, and is thus connected to provide an out foot to the out foot channel, so that none of the inactive laws can enable the execution of an external instruction procedure, each of which has one attribute and one one. A system that does not require any logical operation besides testing for coupling between objects.

A set of inference laws and a processor, the set of inference rules each having logic for selectively combining one attribute with an object according to the attribute / object combination created by the rules Laws of analysis; A group consisting of the ability to selectively combine one object and one attribute according to its infut value, the ability to selectively execute external commands according to the attribute / object combination created by the above rules, and a combination of these two functions. Non-analytical laws, each of which performs a function selected from the processor, the processor receives inputs from the input channel, executes the collection of inference laws on the input, and thus outputs on the output channel. So that none of the analysis laws can enable the execution of an external command procedure; None of the above analysis laws can make it possible to selectively combine one attribute with one object according to the infut value; The laws of analysis essentially implement the laws of natural language reasoning.

Providing inputs (including numeric inputs) from one or more sources to one processor; Executing (in the processor) a collection of inference laws executable on the input; Providing an out foot to one or more out foot channels according to the in foot received in the in foot channel and in accordance with the inference laws; The collection of inference laws includes: search rules, each containing a standard for optionally combining an attribute with an object according to an infut value; The ability to selectively combine one attribute with an object according to the attribute / object combination created by the rules, and the ability to selectively execute an external command according to the attribute / object combination created by the rules, and A method consisting of non-search laws that each perform a function selected from a group consisting of a combination of two functions, the processor executing the non-search laws while not programmed to perform any pure arithmetic test. .

Providing inputs (including numeric inputs) from one or more sources to one processor; Executing (in the processor) a collection of inference laws executable on the input; Providing an out foot to one or more out channels in accordance with the in foot received in the in foot channel and in accordance with the inference laws; The collection of inference laws comprises: search laws each comprising a standard for combining one object with one object, optionally in accordance with an infut value; The ability to selectively combine one attribute with an object according to the attribute / object combination created by the rules, and the ability to selectively execute an external command according to the attribute / object combination created by the rules, and Consisting of non-search laws, each of which performs one function selected from a group consisting of a combination of two functions, none of which requires any pure arithmetic test; Each of the search laws is executed every time the set of laws is executed, but the other laws are not necessarily executed every time the set of laws is executed.

Providing inputs (including numeric inputs) from one or more sources to one processor; Executing (in the processor) a collection of inference laws executable on the input; Providing an out foot to one or more out foot channels according to the in foot received in the in foot channel and in accordance with the inference laws; The collection of inference laws includes: search rules, each containing a standard for optionally combining an attribute with an object according to an infut value; Analysis laws each having logic for selectively combining one attribute with one object according to the attribute / object combination created by the rules; It consists of operating laws each having logic for selectively executing an external instruction according to the attribute / object combination created by the above laws, and none of the above analysis rules and none of the laws of operation are pure arithmetic tests. And none of the above laws of operation require evaluation of any logical expression having three or more input terms.

Providing inputs (including numeric inputs) from one or more sources to one processor; Executing (in the processor) a collection of inference laws executable on the input; Providing outputs to one or more output channels in accordance with the inputs received in the input channel and in accordance with the inference laws, such that the collection of inference laws is one attribute according to the input value. The ability to selectively combine an object with an object, optionally combine one attribute with an object according to the attribute / object combinations created by the above rules, and one selected from the group consisting of a combination of these two functions. Non-operational laws, each providing a basis for functioning; Consists of laws of operation, each having logic for selectively executing an external instruction in accordance with the attribute / object combination created by the laws, none of which can enable the execution of an external instruction procedure. And none of the above laws of operation can combine one attribute with one object.

Providing inputs (including numeric inputs) from one or more sources to one processor; Executing (in the processor) a collection of inference laws executable on the input; Providing an out foot to one or more out foot channels according to the in foot received in the in foot channel and in accordance with the inference laws; The collection of inference laws consists of search rules, each containing a standard for optionally combining an attribute with an object, depending on the infut value; Analysis laws each having logic for selectively combining one attribute with one object according to the attribute / object combination created by the above rules; Consists of operating rules each having logic for selectively executing an external command in accordance with the attribute / object combination created by the rules, and none of the search and analysis rules may enable execution of an external command procedure. And none of the rules of operation can combine an attribute with an object, and the rules of operation each do not require any logical operation other than testing for the combination between one attribute and one object. Wherein the analytical laws essentially implement the laws of natural language reasoning.

Providing inputs (including numeric inputs) from one or more sources to one processor; Executing (in the processor) a collection of inference laws executable on the input; Providing an out foot to one or more out foot channels according to the in foot received in the in foot channel and in accordance with the inference laws; The set of inference laws selectively combines one attribute with one object based on the infut value, and optionally combines one attribute with one object according to the attribute / object combination created by the rules. Non-operational rules, each providing a criterion for one function selected from the group consisting of a combination of these two functions; Consists of laws of operation, each having logic for selectively executing an external instruction in accordance with the attribute / object combination created by the laws, none of which can enable the execution of an external instruction procedure. And none of the above laws of operation require a logical operation other than a test for equality between one attribute and one object.

Providing inputs (including numeric inputs) from one or more sources to one processor; Executing (in the processor) a collection of inference laws executable on the input; Providing an out foot to at least one out foot channel in accordance with the in foot received in the in foot channel and in accordance with the inference laws; The collection of inference laws includes analysis laws that have logic for selectively combining one attribute with an object according to the attribute / object combination created by the above laws; The ability to selectively combine one object and one attribute according to the infut value, the ability to selectively execute external commands based on the attribute / object combination created by the above rules, and the combination of these two functions It consists of non-analytical laws, each of which performs a function selected from a group, none of the analysis laws permits the execution of an external command, and none of the analysis laws define an attribute according to the input value. Cannot selectively combine with one object; Wherein the analytical rules essentially implement the laws of natural language reasoning.

Translating the user input according to a predetermined functional structure into an executable set of rules defining an expert system; Its functional structure includes search rules, each of which includes a standard for selectively combining one attribute with an object according to its infut value, and one attribute according to the attribute / object combination defined by the other rules. Analysis rules, each including logic for selectively combining a with an object, and operating rules, each including logic for selectively executing an external instruction according to the object / attribute combination created by the other laws. Consisting of; Only in contrast to three different forms of law.

Providing a user with a functional structure corresponding to at least three different law forms; Translating the user's input into an executable set of rules defining the accelerator system in accordance with the functional structure, wherein three different law forms are provided, with one attribute being optionally selected according to the input value. Search rules, each containing a standard for associating objects with objects, analysis rules, each containing logic for selectively combining one attribute with one object according to different attribute / object combinations, and other objects / Consists of rules of operation, each containing logic for selectively executing an external instruction in accordance with attribute combinations; And wherein the functional structures for all of the above laws are provided in a format that is easily understood by the user, which is not necessarily fluent in computer language, and which is known to be user-modifiable except for limited portions.

Providing a user with a functional structure for the laws according to one limited set of predetermined forms; Translating the user input according to the template into an executable set of rules defining an expert system; The user input is displayed back to the user for modification, and in such a format that the user modification to the subsequent input redefines the expert system by retranslating to redefine the executable set of laws, And storing the user input separately from the rules, wherein the limited set of predefined forms of the rules, respectively, sets a standard for selectively combining one attribute with one object according to the infut value. Previously-assigned attributes, and analysis rules each including logic to selectively combine an attribute with an object according to the attribute / object combinations defined by the other rules above. Optional execution of external commands Consisting of laws of operation, each containing logic for doing so; Wherein the functional structures for all of the above laws are easily understood by a user, which is not necessarily fluent in computer language, and is provided in a format that is not user-changeable except for limited portions.

Providing a user with a functional structure for the laws according to one limited set of predetermined forms; Translating the user input in accordance with a predetermined functional structure into an executable set of rules that define the expert system, and the format in which such functional structure is provided is not necessarily fluent in computer language. Can be easily understood by non-users; It is not easily user-modifiable except for the limited part and includes standardized data interface definitions, so that the user does not have to explicitly define any custom data interfacing procedures, so any of the data collection and / or process control systems Reference data from one is available; Search rules, each containing a standard for selectively combining an attribute with an object according to an infut value, and an attribute with an object according to an attribute / object combination defined by the other rules. The functional structure consists of laws of analysis, each of which contains logic for selectively combining, and laws of operation, each of which includes logic for selectively executing an external instruction according to an attribute assigned by the other laws. Only in contrast to the above three different law forms.

It includes a rule generation logic that provides a user (when activated) a template for at least three different law forms via a pictorial interface, which optionally includes one attribute depending on the input value. An analysis that includes search rules each containing a standard for associating objects with an object, and logic for selectively combining one attribute with one object according to the object / attribute combination defined by the other laws above. Laws, and rules of operation, each of which contains logic for selectively executing external instructions in accordance with other object / attribute combinations, each of which is easily understood by a user who is not necessarily fluent in computer language. Is provided to the user as a template with a format that can be ; Only a limited portion of the template is user-modifiable, and the law generation logic translates the user input in accordance with the template into one executable set of rules defining an expert system.

It consists of law-creating logic that translates (if activated) the user's input into an executable set of rules that define the expert system according to a predetermined functional structure, the functional structure of which an attribute value Search rules, each of which includes a standard for selectively combining one object according to the above, and logic for selectively combining one attribute with one object according to the object / attribute combination defined by the other laws. Consists of only three different types of laws, each consisting of rules of analysis and rules of operation each containing logic for selectively executing an external instruction according to the object / attribute combination created by the other laws. , system.

A standard for combining rule generation logic that provides the user (when activated) a functional structure for up to three different rule types, and optionally combining one attribute with an object based on numeric input values. Search rules, each of which contains the rules of analysis, each of which contains logic for selectively combining one attribute with one object according to different object / attribute combinations, and the objects / attributes created by the other laws. Consists of laws of operation, each containing logic for selectively executing an external instruction in accordance with the combination; The law generation logic provides the functional structure to all of the rules in a format that is not necessarily user fluent in computer language and is readily understandable to the user and is not user-modifiable except in limited scope. ; And the rule generation logic translates user input into a single executable set of rules defining an expert system in accordance with a functional structure.

4. The system of claim 3 wherein the analytical laws implement essential natural language inference laws.

11. The method of claim 10, wherein the analytical laws implement essential natural language inference laws.

16. The method of claim 15 wherein the analytical laws implement the essential natural language inference laws.

17. The method of claim 16, wherein the analytical rules implement essential natural language inference laws.

18. The method of claim 17 wherein the analytical laws implement the essential natural language inference laws.

19. The method of claim 18 wherein the analytical laws implement the essential natural language inference laws.

17. The method of claim 16, wherein each of the analysis rules comprises logic to optionally include one attribute with one object according to the object / attribute combination created by the other laws.

17. The method of claim 16, wherein each of the laws of operation comprises logic for selectively executing one external instruction in accordance with the object / attribute combination created by the laws.

4. The method according to claim 3, wherein each analysis law (not one of the above-mentioned laws) is required to implement one law of inference, and the description and the conclusion of the law of inference each include the actual nature of a condition. A system that is a language statement.

11. The method according to claim 10, wherein each analysis law (not one of the above-mentioned laws) is required to implement one law of inference, and the description and the conclusion of the law of inference each include the actual nature of a condition. The method, which is a language statement.

18. The method of claim 17, wherein each of the analytical laws (not one other than the analytical ones) necessarily implements each inferential law, and the description and the conclusion of the inferential law are each a true nature of a condition. The method, which is a language statement.

4. The system of claim 3 wherein, under each different condition, two or more of the rules of analysis may each assign a separate attribute to a common object.

6. The system of claim 5, wherein under each different condition, two or more of the rules of analysis may each assign a separate attribute to a common object.

8. The system of claim 7, wherein under each different condition, two or more of the rules of analysis may each assign a separate attribute to a common object.

11. The system of claim 10, wherein under each different condition, two or more of the rules of analysis may each assign a separate attribute to a common object.

4. The system of claim 3 wherein, under each different condition, two or more of the rules of analysis may each assign the same attribute to a common object.

6. The system of claim 5, wherein under each different condition, two or more of the rules of analysis may each assign the same attribute to a common object.

8. The system of claim 7, wherein under each different condition, two or more of the rules of analysis may each assign the same attribute to a common object.

11. The system of claim 10, wherein, under each different condition, two or more of the rules of analysis may each assign the same attribute to a common object.

15. The system of claim 14 wherein, under each different condition, two or more of the rules of analysis may each assign the same attribute to a common object.

2. The system of claim 1, wherein the out foot of the out foot channel comprises synthetic speech.

2. The system of claim 1, wherein the out foot of the out foot channel comprises an email.

2. The system of claim 1, wherein the out foot of the out foot channel comprises a telephone call.

2. The expert system of claim 1, wherein the out foot of the out foot channel includes transmission of data to a history database of process data.

19. The system of claim 18, wherein the law generating logic optionally: provides the functional structure for a new law; In accordance with the instructions of the authorized user, from which the current vision of the expert system is provided corresponding to the functional structure corresponding to the generated user input.

20. The method of claim 19, wherein each of the above laws is provided to the user as a functional structure with a substantially natural language format that is technically skilled in a predetermined field but not necessarily fluent in any computer language, and that can be readily understood by the user. , system.

20. The system of claim 19, wherein only limited portions of the template are user-changeable.

21. The system of claim 20, wherein the law generating logic translates the functional structure into an executable set of rules defining an expert system (as modified by user input).

21. The system of claim 20, wherein the user-changeable portions of the functional structure appear to a user differently from other portions of the functional structure.

20. The system of claim 19, wherein the user-changeable portions of the template appear to the user differently from other portions of the template.

20. The system of claim 19, wherein the set of laws define a substantially real-time expert control system.

4. The system of claim 3, wherein at least some of the laws of operation enable execution of an out foot alerting an operator.

4. The system of claim 3, wherein at least some of the laws of operation enable execution of an out foot providing a speech out foot.

4. The system of claim 3, wherein at least some of the laws of operation enable the execution of outputs from which the expert system generates communication links at a location remote from the processor receiving the input.

4. The system of claim 3, wherein at least some of the laws of operation enable execution of an out foot resulting in a telephone link away from the processor from which the expert system receives the input.

4. The method of claim 3, wherein at least some of the rules of operation cause a call to a location remote from the processor from which the expert system receives the input and to provide a menu of control options to the recipient of the call. System to enable the.

4. The system of claim 3, wherein at least some of the laws of operation provide an out foot that triggers an alert.

53. The system of claim 51, wherein the law generation logic confirms that each input value referenced by the respective search laws is well defined.

The system of claim 1, wherein at least some of the search laws retrieve values substantially corresponding to a current value of one sensor input.

3. The system of claim 2, wherein at least some of the search laws retrieve substantially values to a current value of one sensor input.

4. The system of claim 3, wherein at least some of the search laws retrieve values substantially corresponding to a current value of one sensor input.

6. The system of claim 5, wherein at least some of the search laws retrieve values substantially corresponding to a current value of one sensor input.

The system of claim 1, wherein at least some of the search laws retrieve values that substantially correspond to recent values of laboratory measurements of a sample taken from a process that is running substantially continuously.

6. The system of claim 5, wherein at least some of the search laws retrieve values corresponding substantially to recent values of laboratory measurements of a sample taken from a process that is running substantially continuously.

The system of claim 1, wherein at least some of the search laws retrieve an average over time of a process variable as an input.

4. The system of claim 3, wherein at least some of the search laws retrieve an average over time of a process variable as input.

The system of claim 1, wherein at least some of the search laws retrieve a time weighted average over time of a process variable as input.

10. The system of claim 1, wherein at least some of the search rules retrieve and classify process programs previously programmed into a basic process control system.

The system of claim 1, wherein at least some of the search laws retrieve and classify defined limit values into process variables.

2. The system of claim 1, wherein at least some of the search laws receive signals indicating deviations of process parameters from locally desired control values as inputs.

10. The system of claim 1, wherein at least some of the search laws classify at least some parameters with continuously variable values into a small number of discrete classifications.

9. The method of claim 8, wherein at least some of the search laws retrieve values that substantially correspond to the current value of one sensor input.

9. The method of claim 8, wherein at least some of the search laws retrieve values that substantially correspond to recent values of laboratory measurements of a sample taken from a process that is substantially running continuously.

9. The method of claim 8, wherein at least some of the search law retrieves an average over time of a process variable as input.

10. The method of claim 8, wherein at least some of the search laws retrieve a time weighted average of time of the process variable as input.

10. The method of claim 8, wherein at least some of the search laws retrieve and classify process logs previously programmed into a basic process control system.

9. The method of claim 8, wherein at least some of the search rules retrieve and classify defined limits into process variables.

9. The method of claim 8, wherein at least some of the search law receives a signal indicating deviation of a process parameter from a locally desired control value as an input.

10. The method of claim 8, wherein at least some of the search laws classify at least some parameters with continuously variable values into a small number of discrete classifications.

21. The method of claim 20, wherein the rule generation logic provides a functional structure for search laws including a plurality of options for retrieving a variable executed from one of a plurality of separate sources (when the law is fired). system.

21. The system of claim 20, wherein the rule generation logic provides a functional structure for search laws including two mandatory extensible range statements for high and low values of a continuously variable process value.

21. The system of claim 20, wherein the law generation logic provides a functional structure for a search law that includes an age limit on a parameter.

21. The system of claim 20, wherein the law generation logic provides a functional structure for a search law that includes a closed range statement.

21. The system of claim 20, wherein the law generating logic does not check to ensure that the stated range for the process variable for each search law is inclusive.

21. The system of claim 20, wherein the search law functional structure includes a maximum number of ranges that cannot easily be changed by an operator who is not skilled in computer programming.

The system of claim 1, wherein at least some of the search laws provide a state value indicative of a threshold.

2. The system of claim 1, wherein some of the search laws classify inputs that can only take a limited number of discrete values.

The system of claim 1, wherein some of the search laws classify inputs that are the result of laboratory analysis of a process sample.

2. The system of claim 1, wherein each attribute imparted by each of the search rules has a data type selected from the group consisting of string, list and logical data types.

The system of claim 1, wherein each attribute imparted by each of the search rules has a data type selected from the group consisting of string and list data types.

The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is not programmed to execute the non-search laws while performing any pure arithmetic test.

The method of claim 1, wherein the processor is not programmed to execute the non-search laws while performing any pure arithmetic test, and wherein each search law is executed each time the collection of rules is executed, And not all of the above rules of law are necessarily executed each time.

The system of claim 1, wherein the input value comprises a numeric input value.

The system of claim 1, wherein the input value consists primarily of numeric input values.

The method of claim 8, wherein at least some of the search laws retrieve values that substantially correspond to recent values of laboratory measurements of a sample taken from a process that is running substantially continuously.

The method of claim 8, wherein at least some of the search rules retrieve and classify defined limit values into process variables.

10. The method of claim 8, wherein at least some of the search laws classify continuously variable values into at least some parameters into a small number of discrete classifications.

9. The method of claim 8, wherein at least some of the search laws classify at least some parameters with constantly variable values into a small number of discrete classifications.

16. The method of claim 15, wherein the search law functional structure includes a maximum number of ranges that cannot be easily changed by an operator who is not skilled in computer programming.

9. The method of claim 8, wherein at least some of the search laws provide a state value indicative of a threshold.

9. The method of claim 8, wherein some of the search laws classify inputs that can only take a limited number of discrete values.

The method of claim 8, wherein some of the search laws classify inputs that are the result of laboratory analysis of a process sample.

9. The method of claim 8, wherein each attribute imparted by each of the search rules has a data type selected from the group consisting of string, list and logical data types.

9. The method of claim 8, wherein each attribute imparted by each of the search rules has a data type selected from the group consisting of string and list data types.

8. The system of claim 7, wherein at least some of the analysis laws translate logical combinations of classifications defined by the search law into respective operating conditions.

8. The system of claim 7, wherein at least some of the analysis laws include logic to use one or more state values defined by other analysis laws as at least one input.

8. The system of claim 7, wherein some of the rules of analysis selectively combine attributes from a group comprising at least one normative statement.

21. The expert system of claim 20, wherein the expert system provides a functional structure for the analytical rules that includes a logical combination of results of the maximum number of logical test operations, the maximum number being easily changed by a user who is not skilled in computer programming. System, not something that can be done.

21. The method of claim 20, wherein each analytic law functional structure allows only an ANDed combination of a maximum number of items (the maximum number cannot be easily changed by a user who is not skilled in computer programming) and each item so ANDed. For a user, the user can enter only one object and one attribute to be examined for combining.

15. The method of claim 14, wherein at least some of the analysis laws translate logical combinations of classifications defined by the search law into respective operating conditions.

15. The method of claim 14, wherein at least some of the analysis laws include logic to use, as at least one input, one or more state values defined by other analysis laws.

15. The method of claim 14, wherein at least some of the rules of analysis selectively combine attributes from a group comprising at least one normative statement.

5. The system of claim 4, wherein if one of the rules of operation has one logical value indicating that execution should be performed, at least some of the rules of operation point to at least one individual program instruction to be executed.

7. The system of claim 6, wherein if one of the rules of operation has one logical value indicating that execution should be performed, then some of the rules of operation point to at least one individual program instruction to be executed.

5. The system of claim 4, wherein each law of operation enables execution of each instruction that relies on only one of the object / attribute combinations.

7. The system of claim 6, wherein each law of operation enables execution of each instruction that relies on only one of the object / attribute combinations.

7. The system of claim 6, wherein none of the non-operational laws enable the execution of an external command means, and neither of the operational rules can combine one attribute with one object.

7. The method of claim 6, wherein none of the non-operational laws enable the execution of a single external instruction, and each of the operational rules requires an out-of-test logical operation for coupling between one attribute and one object. Does not, the system.

4. The method of claim 3, wherein none of the search and analysis laws enable execution of an external command, and none of the rules of operation may combine one attribute with one object, and each law of operation is one. A system in which the analytical law implements the essential natural language inference law without the need for any logical operations other than testing for the coupling between an attribute and an object.

6. The processor of claim 5, wherein the processor is not coupled to perform any of the pure arithmetic tests while executing the laws of operation and even when executing the laws of operation, wherein the processor is capable of performing three or more times while performing the laws of operation. The system is not connected to evaluate any logical representation with a foot term.

12. The system of claim 11, wherein if one of the operational status items has one logical value indicating that execution should be performed, then some of the pupil laws point to at least one individual program instruction to be executed.

12. The method of claim 11, wherein each law of operation enables execution of each instruction that relies on only one object / attribute combination.

The method of claim 13, wherein each law of operation enables execution of each instruction that relies on only one object / attribute combination.

12. The method of claim 11, wherein none of the laws of operation cannot enable the execution of one external instruction, and each of the rules of operation requires an off-logical logical operation for combining between one attribute and one object. Do not, how.

13. The method of claim 12, wherein none of the search and analysis laws enable the execution of an external command, and none of the rules of operation may combine one attribute with one object, and each law of operation is one. A method in which the analytical law implements the essential natural language inference law without the need for any logical operation other than testing for the coupling between an attribute and an object.

22. The system of claim 21, wherein the law-generating logic does not check user input in response to the functional structure to ensure that user input has defined a consistent expert system.

17. The method of claim 16, wherein each of said laws is provided to the user as a functional structure having a format that is technically skilled in a predetermined field, but which is not necessarily fluent in computer language, but is easily understood by the user.

17. The method of claim 16, wherein each of the laws is provided to the user as a functional structure having a substantially natural language format.

2. The system of claim 1, wherein the expert system comprises one computer that runs one or more programs, including one periodic process, wherein the periodic process repeatedly samples a plurality of signals corresponding to the input, Forming inferences from the inputs according to stored knowledge bases, providing outputs to the inferences, and then entering a dormant state with a predetermined duration; The duration of the back state is long enough such that the cycling process does not occupy, on average, more than 50% of the CPU time available to the computer; The duration of the dormant state is chosen to be short enough such that a process instability state cannot escape to an uncontrollable state during periods when the process is dormant.

15. The method of claim 14, wherein the function of associating one attribute with one object comprises placing one descriptor at one name.

15. The method of claim 14, wherein the function of combining one attribute with one object generally comprises defining one variable that generally corresponds to the object having a value corresponding to the attribute.

15. The computer-based method of claim 14, wherein the ability to combine one attribute with one object consists essentially of placing one descriptor in one name.

17. The method of claim 16, wherein providing a functional structure to a user includes providing standardized data interface definitions so that the user can specify data having one of a plurality of predefined temporal characteristics.

17. The method of claim 16, wherein providing a functional structure to a user includes providing standardized data interface definitions, such that the user can specify data having one of a plurality of predetermined time characteristics, wherein the predetermined Wherein the temporal characteristic includes both the current value and the time-averaged value.

17. The method of claim 16, wherein providing a functional structure to a user provides standardized data interface definitions so that the user can specify data from any of a variety of different types of control systems having different individual data standards. How to do

Running a process having one or more sensors connected to detect a condition of the process and one or more actuators connected to change the condition of the process; Controlling one or more of said actuators with a process controller in accordance with the signals received from said sensors and in accordance with control parameters; And requesting at least one Expert subprocedure connected to define the control parameters for the process controller, comprising a plurality of software modules, and comprising at least one knowledge base and inference structure suitable for the process, And iteratively operating one process supervisor procedure.

Running a process having one or more sensors connected to detect a condition of the process and one or more actuators connected to change the condition of the process; Controlling one or more of said actuators with a process controller in accordance with the signals received from said sensors and in accordance with control parameters; Iteratively defining one or more of the control parameters for the process controller, repeatedly requesting one process supervisor procedure, also requesting at least one expert subprocedure using one knowledge base and inference structure appropriate for the process. Operating; At least one of the timestamped data with respect to the underlying process, wherein at least one of the supervisor procedure and the expert sub-forsyche maintains one historical database from which to retrieve at least some values of process variables. Computer-based method for operating a substantially continuous process.

Running a process having one or more sensors connected to detect a condition of the process and one or more actuators connected to change the condition of the process; Controlling at least one said actuator with a process controller in accordance with a signal received from said sensors and in accordance with a control parameter; Iteratively requesting at least one Expert subprocedure, using one knowledge base and inference structure appropriate for the process, to selectively define one or more of the control parameters for the process controller, repeatedly Operating with; And optionally provide a user with one functional structure for one new law of the expert subprocedure and / or one functional structure corresponding to a user input that generated the current vision of the expert subprocedure, wherein the functional Computer-based method for operating a substantially continuous process, comprising selectively compiling user inputs into structures into a new version of the expert subprocedure.

Running a process having one or more sensors connected to detect a condition of the process and one or more actuators connected to change the condition of the process; Controlling the actuator with a process controller in accordance with a signal received from the sensors and in accordance with a control parameter; Connected to define the control parameters for the process controller, comprising a plurality of modules of software, and also requesting at least one Expert subprocedure using one knowledge base and inference structure suitable for the process, Iteratively running a process supervisor procedure; Provide, according to the instructions of the authorized user, a functional structure corresponding to one new law of the expert subprocedure and / or a user structure corresponding to the user input that generated the current version of the expert subprocedure, and wherein the functional Optionally compiling user inputs into the structure into a new version of the expert subprocedure; Provide functional structures for one new module of the supervisor procedure and / or one functional structure corresponding to one user input that generated the current module of the supervisor procedure according to the command of the authorized user, and Selectively loading the user input into the structure to be computationally accessible by the existing supervisor procedure.

Running a process having one or more sensors connected to detect a condition of the process and one or more actuators connected to change the condition of the process; Controlling one or more of said actuators in accordance with a signal received from one or more said sensors and in accordance with control parameters; Several of the above control parameters are redefined according to the output that can be provided by one expert subprocedure comprising one knowledge base and inference structure suitable for the process, and the time-stamped sputter subprocesses for the underlying process are fetched. , Computer-based method for the operation of continuous continuous processes.

Running a process having one or more sensors connected to detect the conditions of the table to be processed and one or more actuators connected to change the process conditions; The outer provided by one expert subprocedure comprising one knowledge base and inference structure suitable for the process, by controlling one or more of the actuators in accordance with signals received from one or more of the sensors and in accordance with control parameters. Redefining at least some of the control parameters in accordance with the foot; Provide the user with functional structures corresponding to the new laws of the expert subprocedure and / or user structures corresponding to the user input that generated the current version of the expert subprocedure, and the user input into the functional structure. And compiling them to select them into a new version of said expert subprocedure.

One or more sensors connected to detect the condition of the process and one or more actuators connected to change the condition of the process; One process controller coupled to receive at least one sensor data generated by the sensor and connected to control one or more of the actuators according to the sensor data and individual control parameters; A process supervisor procedure comprising a plurality of software modules coupled to convey the individual control parameters to the process controller; A knowledge base and inference structure suitable for the process, comprising at least one expert subprocedure callable by the process supervisor; A computer-based system for controlling substantially continuous processes wherein the supervisor procedure has a maximum iteration much greater than the maximum iteration of the controller.

One or more sensors connected to detect the condition of the process and one or more actuators connected to change the condition of the process; A process controller coupled to receive sensor data generated by at least one of the sensors, and connected to control one or more of the actuators in accordance with the sensor data and individual control parameters; A process supervisor procedure comprising a plurality of software modules coupled to convey the individual control parameters to the process controller; At least one expert subprocedure comprising a knowledge base and inference structure suitable for the process, the at least one expert subprocedure being callable by the process supervisor procedure; A history database comprising at least some time-stamped data about the underlying process; A computer-based system for controlling substantially continuous processes, wherein said supervisor procedure has a maximum repeat duration much greater than the maximum repeat duration of said controller.

One or more sensors connected to detect the condition of the process and one or more actuators connected to change the condition of the process; A process controller coupled to receive sensor data generated by at least one of the sensors, and connected to control one or more of the actuators in accordance with the sensor data and individual control parameters; A process supervisor procedure comprising a plurality of software modules coupled to convey the individual control parameters to the process controller; At least one expert subprocedure comprising at least one knowledge base and inference structure suitable for the process and callable by the process supervisor; By instruction, provide the authorized user with functional structures for the new laws of the expert subprocedure; Instructing the authorized user to provide one functional structure corresponding to the user input that generated the current version of the expert subprocedure, and to provide the user inputs to the functional structures to the new expert subprocedure. Consists of one build-expert procedure, configured to compile selectively as a version; A computer-based system for controlling substantially continuous processes wherein the supervisor procedure has a maximum iteration much greater than the maximum iteration of the controller.

One or more sensors connected to detect the condition of the process and one or more actuators connected to change the condition of the process; A process controller coupled to receive sensor data generated by at least one of the sensors, and connected to control one or more of the actuators in accordance with the sensor data and individual control parameters; A process supervisor procedure comprising a plurality of software modules coupled to convey the individual control parameters to the process controller; At least one expert subprocedure comprising at least one knowledge base and inference structure suitable for the process and callable by the supervisor procedure; By instruction, provide the authorized user with one functional structure for one new law of the ecstasy procedure; Command to provide an authorized user with one functional constructs corresponding to the user input that generated the current version of the supervisor procedure, and provide user inputs to the functional constructs to the new subprocess of the expert. A build-expert procedure configured to compile selectively into a version; By instruction, provide the authorized user with functional structures for new modules of the supervisor procedure; Instructing the authorized user to provide one donor structure corresponding to the user input that generated the current modules of the supervisor procedure, the user inputs to the functional structures being computed by the supervisor procedure. Consists of build-supervisor procedures configured to make loading optional and accessible; A computer-based system for control of a substantially continuous process wherein the supervisor procedure has a maximum repetition period much greater than the maximum repetition period of the controller.

The expert system of claim 1, wherein the knowledge base and the inference structure define a substantially real-time expert control system.

2. The expert system of claim 1, wherein said process controller computes substantially in real time and said expert subprocedure does not continuously compute in real time.

The expert system of claim 1, wherein the underlying process controller includes real-time logic and the expert subprocedure is cyclically operated in a batch process.

The expert system of claim 1, wherein the controller is an analog controller.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the individual data definitions are defined by individual data definitions, including pointers to a procedure to perform a separate function and, for at least some of the modules, a parameter to be passed to the pointer that is pointed to. Being, expert system.

The expert system of claim 1, wherein one or more of the control parameters comprise at least one gool of the process controller.

2. The expert system of claim 1, wherein said controller and said supervisor procedure of step (3) comprise processes running on the same computer system.

The expert system of claim 1, wherein the controller and the supervisor procedure are separate portions of a system of the same software system.

3. The computer-based system of claim 2 wherein the knowledge base and the inference structure define a substantially real-time expert control system.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein the individual data definitions include pointers to procedures to perform one individual function and parameters to be passed to the procedures pointed to (at least for some of the modules). A computer-based method for creating an expert system, in which software modules are defined.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein the individual data definitions include pointers to procedures to perform one individual function and parameters to be passed to the procedures pointed to (for at least some of the modules). Software modules are defined in which (most of the procedures pointed generally correspond to one of a limited number of procedure forms, and at least some of the procedures pointed to also generally do not correspond to any one of the limited number of procedure forms. And a pointer to non-procedural procedures, the computer-based method for creating an expert system.

3. The computer-based method of claim 2, wherein at least some of the control parameters comprise a stack of at least one of the process controllers.

4. The expert system of claim 3, wherein said user-changeable portions of said functional structures appear to said user differently from other portions.

4. The expert of claim 3, wherein said step of providing a functional structure comprises providing standardized data interface definitions to enable a user to specify data having one of a plurality of predefined time characteristics. Computer based method to make a system.

4. The computer-based method of claim 3, wherein the knowledge base and the inference structure define a substantially real-time expert control system.

4. The separate data definitions of claim 3 comprising pointers to procedures to perform one individual function and parameters to be passed to the procedures pointed to (at least for some of the modules). Wherein the soft modules are defined by a computer based method for making an expert system.

4. The method of claim 3, wherein the individual data definitions include pointers to procedures to perform one individual function and parameters to be passed to the procedures pointed to (at least for some of the modules). Wherein the majority of the procedures pointed to generally correspond to one of a limited number of procedure forms in which the software modules are defined, and at least some of the procedures pointed to also generally correspond to either of the limited number of procedure forms. And a pointer to non-procedural procedures, the computer based method for creating an expert system.

4. The computer-based method of claim 3, wherein at least some of the control parameters comprise a stack of at least one of the process controllers.

5. The computer-based method of claim 4 wherein the functional structures provided to a user have a substantially natural language format.

The expert system of claim 4, wherein the functional structures provided to the user have a substantially natural language format, which is technically skilled in a predetermined field but which is not necessarily fluent in computer language, but can be easily understood by the user. Computer-based way to make.

5. The computer-based method of claim 4 wherein only limited portions of the functional structures are user-modifiable.

5. The computer-based method of claim 4, wherein the user-changeable portion of the functional structure appears to a user unlike other portions.

5. The expert system of claim 4, wherein providing the functional structures comprises providing standardized data interface definitions to allow a user to specify data having one of a plurality of predefined time characteristics. Computer-based way to make.

5. The computer-based method of claim 4, wherein the knowledge base and the inference structure define a substantially real-time expert control system.

5. The software module of claim 4, wherein the software modules are defined by separate data definitions, including pointers to a procedure to perform an individual function and a parameter to be passed to the pointed procedure (for at least some of the software modules). A computer-based method for defining, expert systems.

5. The software module of claim 4, wherein the software modules are defined by individual data definitions, including pointers to a procedure to perform an individual function (for at least some of the software modules) and parameters to be passed to the procedure pointed to. (Most of the procedures pointed to generally correspond to one generally in a limited number of procedure forms, and at least some of the procedures pointed to also refer to procedures that generally do not correspond to any one of the limited number of procedure forms as above. Computer-based method for creating expert systems.

5. The computer-based method of claim 4, wherein at least some of the control parameters comprise a set of at least one process controller.

6. The computer-based method of claim 5 wherein the knowledge base and inference structure define a substantially real-time expert control system.

6. The computer-based method of claim 5 wherein the process controller computes substantially continuously in real time and the expert subprocedure does not continuously compute in real time.

6. The computer-based method of claim 5 wherein the underlying process controller includes real-time logic and the expert subprocedure is cyclically run in a batch process.

6. The computer-based method of claim 5 wherein the controller is an analog controller.

6. The method of claim 5, wherein the individual data definitions include pointers to a procedure to perform one individual function and a parameter to be passed to the procedure pointed to (at least for some of the modules). Computer-based system defined by software modules to create an expert system.

6. The computer-based method of claim 5, wherein at least some of the control parameters comprise at least one of the process controllers.

6. The computer-based method of claim 5 wherein the controller and the supervisor procedure comprise processes running in the same computer system.

6. The computer-based method of claim 5 wherein the controller and the supervisor procedure are both separate parts of the same software system.

The expert of claim 6, wherein the functional structurers provided to the user have a substantially natural language format, which is technically skilled in a predetermined field, but which is not necessarily fluent in computer language, but can be easily understood by the user. Computer based method to make a system.

7. The computer-based method of claim 6 wherein only limited portions of the functional structures are user-modifiable.

185. The computer-based method of claim 184, wherein the functional structure of step (4) comprises a user-changeable portion that appears to the user differently from other portions.

7. The method of claim 6, wherein providing the functional structure includes providing standardized data interface definitions to enable a user to specify data having one of a plurality of predefined time characteristics. Computer based method for making expert system.

7. The computer-based system of claim 6 wherein the knowledge base and the inference structure define a substantially real-time expert control system.

8. The computer-based system of claim 7, wherein the supervisor procedure is a cycling process and the controller operates substantially real time procedures.

8. The computer-based system of claim 7, wherein the knowledge base and the inference structure define a substantially real-time expert control system.

8. The computer of claim 7, wherein the supervisor procedure uses a batch process that includes a timed dormant state, and the batch process is operated by the process supervisor procedure because the duration of the dormant state is sufficiently large. Does not average more than 50% of the CPU time available to the system; The process instability state is such that the duration of the dormant state is selected sufficiently short that the process instability cannot escape into an uncontrollable phase during the period in which the batch process is dormant.

8. The computer-based system of claim 7, wherein the process controller performs substantially continuous operation in real time and the expert subprocedure does not continuously operate in real time by the means.

8. The computer-based system of claim 7, wherein the process controller includes real-time logic and the expert subprocedure means are cyclically operated as a batch process.

8. The method of claim 7, wherein the expert subprocedure comprises a computer that runs one or more programs, including a periodic process, wherein the periodic processor repeatedly samples a plurality of signals corresponding to the input and stores the stored knowledge base. Forming inference from the input, providing an output in accordance with the inference, and then entering a dormant state with a predetermined duration; The duration of the dormant state is long enough that the periodic process does not occupy, on average, more than 50% of the CPU time available to the computer; The duration of the dormant state is selected to be short enough such that a process instability state cannot escape to an uncontrollable state during periods in which the process is dormant.

8. The computer-based system of claim 7, wherein the controller is an analog controller.

8. A separate data definition as recited in claim 7, wherein said software modules include pointers to procedures to perform individual functions, and parameters to be passed to the means (in at least some of said modules) to said procedures. A computer based system for creating expert systems, as defined by them.

8. The system of claim 7, wherein at least some of the control parameters comprise at least one gool of the process controller.

8. The system of claim 7, wherein the controller and the supervisor procedure comprise processors running in the same computer system.

8. The system of claim 7, wherein the controller and the supervisor procedure are both separate parts of the same software system.

10. The system of claim 8, wherein the knowledge base and the inference structure define one substantially real-time expert control system.

9. The individual data definition as recited in claim 8, wherein the software module includes pointers to a procedure to perform an individual function and a parameter to be passed to the procedure pointed (in at least some of the software module). Defined by the system.

186. The apparatus of claim 186, wherein the software modules include pointers to procedures to perform the individual function (and in at least some of the modules) and by individual data definitions to include a parameter to be passed to the procedure. As defined, (most of the procedures pointed to generally correspond to one of a limited number of procedure forms, and at least some of the pointed procedures also also generally do not correspond to any of the limited number of procedure forms. System).

10. The system of claim 8, using a set of one or more of the process controllers of at least some of the control parameters.

10. The system of claim 9, wherein the functional structures provided to a user are readily skilled by the user, although technically skilled in a predetermined field, but not necessarily fluent in computer language.

10. The system of claim 9, wherein only limited portions of the functional structures are user-changeable.

10. The system of claim 9, wherein the functional structures appear to a user differently from other portions than user-changeable portions.

10. The system of claim 9, wherein the functional structures include standardized data interface definitions to enable a user to specify data having one of a plurality of predetermined time characteristics.

10. The system of claim 9, wherein the knowledge base and the inference structure define one substantially real time expert control system.

10. A separate data definition as recited in claim 9, wherein said software modules include pointers to procedures to perform an individual function, and parameters to be passed to said procedures pointed to (and in at least some of said software modules). Defined by the system.

10. The system of claim 9, wherein at least some of the control parameters comprise at least one gool of the process controller.

The system of claim 10, wherein the build-supervisor does not allow data corresponding to the new user input to be actively accessed by the supervisor procedure until one validation run is performed. .

The system of claim 10, wherein the supervisor procedure is one purifying procedure and the controller operates substantially real time procedures.

The system of claim 10, wherein the functional structures provided to the user have a substantially natural language format, which is technically skilled in a predetermined field, but is not necessarily fluent in computer language, but can be readily understood by the user.

The system of claim 10, wherein only limited portions of the functional structures are user-changeable.

The system of claim 10, wherein the user-modified portions of the functional structures appear to the user differently from other portions.

The system of claim 10, wherein the knowledge base and the inference structure define one substantially real-time expert control system.

11. The system of claim 10, wherein the process controller operates substantially continuously in real time, and wherein the accelerator subprocedure does not continuously operate in real time.

185. The system of claim 188, wherein the controller is an analog controller.

11. A separate data definition as recited in claim 10, wherein the software modules include pointers to procedures to perform the individual functions and parameters to be passed to the procedures pointed to (and in at least some of the software modules). Defined by the system.

The data of claim 10, wherein the software modules include pointers to procedures to perform the individual function and parameters to be passed to the procedures pointed to (and in at least some of the software module). (Most of the procedures pointed to generally correspond to one of the forms of a limited number of procedures, and at least some of the procedures pointed to also generally correspond to either of the limited number of procedure forms. No pointers to procedures).

The system of claim 10, wherein at least some of the control parameters comprise at least one set of process controllers.

The system of claim 10, wherein the controller and the supervisor procedure comprise processes running on the same computer system.

The system of claim 10, wherein the controller and the supervisor procedure are both separate portions of the same software system.

Running a process having one or more sensors connected to detect a condition of the process and one or more actuators connected to change the condition of the process; Controlling one or more of said actuators with a process controller in accordance with signals received from said sensors and in accordance with control parameters; Iteratively operating a connected process supervisor procedure to define the control parameters for the process controller; For each of the control parameters, the supervisor procedure is limited so as not to cause a change, unless the indicia for operation exceeds a respective significant threshold; The supervisor procedure reports all instances of where it changes control parameters.

Running a process having one or more sensors connected to detect a condition of the process and one or more actuators connected to change the condition of the process; Controlling one or more of said actuators with a process controller in accordance with signals received from said sensors and in accordance with control parameters; Iteratively operating a connected process supervisor procedure to define the control parameters for the process controller; For each of the control parameters, the supervisor procedure is limited such that the amount of change does not cause a change unless the amount of change exceeds a certain threshold.

Running a process having one or more sensors connected to detect a condition of the process and one or more actuators connected to change the condition of the process; Controlling one or more of said actuators with a process controller in accordance with signals received from said sensors and in accordance with control parameters; Iteratively operating a connected process supervisor procedure to define the control parameters for the process controller; For each of the control parameters, the supervisor procedure is constrained so that no change occurs unless the indicator for operation exceeds an individual effective threshold.

Running a process having one or more sensors connected to detect the condition of the process and one or more actuators connected to change the condition of the process; Controlling one or more of the actuators according to a signal received from the sensor; At least some of the actuators are controlled in a feedforward relationship for individual measurement variables, the feedforward relationship comprising a deadband.

Running a process having one or more sensors connected to detect the condition of the process and one or more actuators connected to change the condition of the process; Controlling one or more of the actuators according to a signal received from the sensor; At least some of the actuators are each controlled in a feedback relationship with a corresponding individual measurement variable, the feedback relationship comprising operational thresholding selected from the group consisting of statistical filtering, deadbands and combinations thereof; And at least some of the actuators are controlled in a feedforward relationship with respect to individual measurement variables, the feedforward relationship comprising a deadband.

One or more actuators connected to change the condition of one or more sensors and processors connected to sense the condition of the material to be treated; A plurality of process controllers each connected to control one or more of said actuators in accordance with a signal received from said sensor and in accordance with individual control parameters; Consisting of one process supervisor procedure connected to define the control parameters for the process controller; For each of the control parameters, the supervisor procedure is constrained so that no change occurs unless the amount of change exceeds a certain threshold; The supervisor procedure reports all instances of where it changes the control parameters.

One or more actuators connected to change the condition of one or more sensors and processors connected to sense the condition of the treated material; A plurality of process controllers each connected to control one or more of said actuators in accordance with a signal received from said sensor and in accordance with individual control parameters; Consisting of one process supervisor procedure connected to define the control parameters for the process controller; For substantially all of the control parameters, the supervisor procedure is constrained so as not to cause a change unless the indicator for operation exceeds an individual effective threshold; The supervisor procedure reports all instances of where it changes the control parameters.

The computer-based method of claim 1, wherein the controller is a periodic procedure and the supervisor procedure is also a periodic procedure.

The method of claim 1, wherein the supervisor procedure is a periodic procedure and the controller operates as a substantially real time procedure.

The method of claim 1, wherein the supervisor procedure comprises a computer running one or more programs including one periodic process, wherein the periodic process repeatedly samples and stores a plurality of signals corresponding to the input. Forming inference from the input in accordance with the knowledge base, providing an output in accordance with the inference, and then entering a human state with a duration defined by timing; The duration of the human state is sufficiently long that the process does not occupy an average of more than 50% of the CPU time available to the computer; Wherein the duration of the human state is selected to be short enough such that a process instability cannot escape to an uncontrollable state during periods in which the process is dormant.

The method of claim 1, wherein the supervisor procedure defines a parameter that includes a parameter for a feedback control relationship that includes a deadband in each of the control parameters.

The method of claim 1, wherein the supervisor procedure has a maximum iteration much longer than the maximum iteration of the controller.

The method of claim 1, wherein the controller is an analog controller.

The method of claim 1, wherein the iterative operation of the process supervisor procedure comprises operating the supervisor procedure as a periodic procedure.

The method of claim 1, wherein the at least some of the control parameters comprise gools of at least one of the process controller.

The method of claim 1, wherein the individual thresholds on the indicia for operation depend on the particular operation expected.

The method of claim 1, wherein the individual thresholds on the indicia for operation are different for at least some individual parameters of the control parameter.

The method of claim 1, wherein the controller and the supervisor procedure include processes running in the same computer system.

The method of claim 1, wherein the controller and the supervisor procedure are both identical parts of a software system.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein the supervisor procedure is a periodic procedure and the controller operates as a substantially real time procedure.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein the supervisor procedure comprises a feedback control relationship that includes a deadband on individual parameters of the control parameter.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein the supervisor procedure has a maximum iteration much longer than the maximum iteration of the controller.

The method of claim 2, wherein the controller is an analog controller.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein said at least some of said control parameters comprise gools of at least one said process controller.

The method of claim 2, wherein the individual thresholds on the indicia for operation are different for at least some individual parameter of the control parameter.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein the controller and the supervisor procedure include processes running in the same computer system.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein the controller and supervisor procedure are separate parts of a software system that are all in mode.

4. The method of claim 3, wherein for each of the control parameters, the supervisor procedure is constrained so as not to cause a change unless the amount of change exceeds a certain threshold; The supervisor procedure reports all cases where it changes the control parameters.

4. The method of claim 3, wherein for each of the control parameters the supervisor procedure is constrained so as not to cause a change unless the amount of change exceeds a certain threshold.

4. The method of claim 3, wherein the supervisor procedure comprises a feedback control relationship that includes a deadband on individual parameters of the control parameter.

4. The method of claim 3, wherein the supervisor procedure has a maximum iteration much longer than the maximum iteration of the controller.

4. The method of claim 3, wherein the controller is an analog controller.

4. The method of claim 3, wherein said at least some of said control parameters comprise gools of at least one said process controller.

4. The method of claim 3, wherein the individual thresholds on the indicia for operation are different for at least some individual parameters of the control parameter.

4. The method of claim 3, wherein the controller and the supervisor procedure comprise processes running on the same computer system.

4. The method of claim 3, wherein the controller and supervisor procedure are both identical parts of a software system.

5. The method of claim 4, wherein the supervisor procedure is a periodic procedure and the controller operates as a substantially real time procedure.

5. The method of claim 4, wherein the supervisor procedure comprises a feedback control relationship comprising a deadband on individual parameters of the control parameter.

5. The method of claim 4, wherein the supervisor procedure has a maximum iteration much longer than the maximum iteration of the controller.

The method of claim 4, wherein the controller is an analog controller.

5. The method of claim 4, wherein said at least some of said control parameters comprise gools of at least one said process controller.

5. The method of claim 4, wherein the individual thresholds on the indicia for operation are different for at least some individual parameters of the control parameter.

5. The method of claim 4, wherein the individual feedforward relationship comprises a deadband applied to a measurement variable.

5. The method of claim 4, wherein the controller and the supervisor procedure include processes running in the same computer system.

5. The method of claim 4, wherein the controller and supervisor procedure are both identical parts of a software system.

6. The method of claim 5, wherein the supervisor procedure comprises at least one feedback control relationship, including a deadband on individual parameters of the control parameter.

6. The method of claim 5, wherein the supervisor procedure has a maximum iteration much longer than the maximum iteration of the controller.

6. The method of claim 5, wherein the controller is an analog controller.

6. The method of claim 5, wherein the individual thresholds on the indicia for operation are different for at least some individual parameters of the control parameter.

6. The method of claim 5, wherein the controller and supervisor procedure comprise processes running on the same computer system.

6. The method of claim 5, wherein the controller and supervisor procedure are all the same part of a software system.

7. The system of claim 6, wherein the supervisor procedure reports the change of the control parameter by means including a voice message.

7. The system of claim 6, wherein the supervisor procedure comprises at least one feedback control relationship comprising a deadband on individual parameters of the control parameter.

7. The system of claim 6, wherein the supervisor procedure has a maximum iteration much longer than the maximum iteration of the controller.

7. The system of claim 6, wherein at least one said controller is a analog controller.

7. The system of claim 6, wherein said at least some of said control parameters comprise gools of at least one said process controller.

7. The system of claim 6, wherein the individual thresholds on the indicia for operation are different for at least some individual parameters of the control parameter.

7. The system of claim 6, wherein the controller and the supervisor procedure comprise processes running on the same computer system.

7. The system of claim 6, wherein the controller and supervisor procedure are both separate parts of the same software system.

8. The system of claim 7, wherein the supervisor procedure has a maximum iteration much longer than the maximum iteration of the controller.

8. The system of claim 7, wherein at least one said controller is an analog controller.

8. The system of claim 7, wherein the individual thresholds on the forge for operation are different for at least some individual parameters of the control parameter.

Running a process having one or more sensors connected to sense the condition of the material to be treated and one or more actuators connected to change the condition of the processor; Controlling one or more of said actuators as a process controller in accordance with a signal received from said sensor and in accordance with control parameters; Iteratively operating one process supervisor procedure comprising a plurality of software modules coupled to define the control parameters for the process controller; Providing functional structures, in accordance with the instructions of an authorized licensee, for one new software modules for the supervisor procedure and / or corresponding to the user input that generated the current module of the supervisor procedure, and the functional structures. And optionally selectably loading user infuses of the erotic by the soup visor procedure; The step of providing functional structures includes providing standardized data interface definitions so that the module obtains data from any of a plurality of data aggregates and / or process control systems, or by any user. A method of sending process control parameters to any one of a plurality of data aggregates and / or process control systems without the need to explicitly define a storm data interfacing procedure.

One or more sensors connected to detect the condition of the process and one or more actuators connected to change the condition of the process; A process controller coupled to control one or more of said actuators according to a deviation between one or more said sensors and individual high temperature conditions; A process supervisor procedure operating on a digital computer separate from the controller, the process supervisor procedure comprising a plurality of modules of software and coupled to convey the individual conditions to the process controller; Provide, on command to an authorized, user, functional structures for new modules for the supervisor procedure; Provide, on command, an authorized user with functional structures corresponding to the user input that generated the current module of the supervisor procedure; And selectively load the user inputs into the functional structures to be computationally accessible by the supervisor procedure; Consisting of build-supervisor procedures; The supervisor procedure has a maximum iteration much longer than the maximum iteration of the controller.

One or more sensors connected to detect the condition of the processor and one or more actuators connected to change the condition of the process; A process control supervisor procedure comprising a plurality of software modules each defining a control relationship between a plurality of said sensors and actuators; Provide, according to the instructions to authorized users, templates for new software modules for the supervisor procedure; Providing, according to the instructions to the authorized user, templates containing data corresponding to the user input that generated the current module of the supervisor procedure; And selectively load the user inputs into the functional structures to be computationally accessible by the supervisor procedure; Consisting of build-supervisor procedures; Wherein each template provided by the build-supervisor procedure includes one standard functional control relationship selected from a very limited set, and a pointer to optional user-customized programming.

The method of claim 1, wherein the controller is a periodic procedure and the supervisor procedure is also a periodic procedure.

The method of claim 1, wherein the supervisor procedure is a periodic procedure and the controller operates substantially as a real time procedure.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the functional structures have a technical skill in a predetermined field, but none of which are provided with a functional structure in a substantially natural language format that can be readily understood by a user who is not necessarily competent in computer language. , Way.

The method of claim 1, wherein only limited portions of the functional structures are user-modifiable.

The method of claim 1, wherein user-changeable portions of the functional structures appear differently to users than other portions.

The method of claim 1, wherein the functional structures have a substantially natural language format.

The method of claim 1, wherein the supervisor procedure also requests at least one expert subprocedure comprising one knowledge base and inference structure related to the process.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein for each of the control parameters, the supervisor procedure is constrained not to make a change unless the marker for change exceeds a certain threshold, and the supervisor procedure causes it to be one of the control parameters. How to report all the cases that change.

The method of claim 1, wherein for each of the control parameters, the supervisor procedure is constrained not to make a change unless the amount of change exceeds any constant threshold.

The method of claim 1, wherein the supervisor procedure follows one feedback control relationship including a deadband in each of the control parameters, and the supervisor procedure includes one deadband in each of the control parameters. A method, following a feedforward control relationship.

2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the functional structures allow a user to define timing and sequencing parameters for each of the blocks, the blocks being at least; The option to become active if another specified software module becomes active; An option that becomes active when a new value is entered for a specified data source; Or an option that becomes active if inactivity of one specified time has elapsed.

The method of claim 1, wherein the supervisor procedure has a maximum repetition period substantially longer than the maximum repetition period of the controller.

The method of claim 1, wherein at least one said controller is an analog controller.

The method of claim 1, wherein the software modules are defined by separate data definitions and passed to pointers to the procedures on which they are to perform their respective functions, and to the procedures pointed to (at least for some modules). Including quality parameters.

The procedure of claim 1, wherein the software modules are defined by respective data definitions, the pointers to which procedures to perform respective functions, and the procedures pointed to (at least for some modules). Wherein the majority of said procedures pointed to generally correspond to one of a limited number of procedure types.

The data definition of claim 1, wherein the software modules include pointers to procedures to perform a separate function and parameters to be passed to the procedures pointed to (at least for some of the software modules). Procedures defined by (the majority of the procedures pointed to generally correspond to one of a limited number of procedure forms, and at least some of the procedures pointed to generally do not correspond to any of the limited number of procedure forms) Method).

The method of claim 1, wherein at least some of the control parameters comprise at least one gool of the process controller.

The method of claim 1, wherein the step of providing functional structures comprises providing standardized data interface definitions, so that a user can specify data having one of a plurality of predefined time characteristics.

The method of claim 1, wherein the step of providing functional structures comprises providing standardized data interface definitions, so that a user can specify data having one of a plurality of predefined time characteristics, wherein the predefined Wherein the timed values are current values include all time-averaged values.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of providing functional structures comprises providing standardized data interface definitions, so that a user can specify data from any of several different types of control systems having different respective data standards. How you can.

The method of claim 1, wherein the functional structures comprise a limited set of standard functional control relationships and a pointer to optional user-customized programming.

The method of claim 1, wherein the controller and the supervisor procedure include processes running on the same computer system.

The method of claim 1, wherein the controller and the supervisor procedure are separate parts of the same software system.

The method of claim 1, wherein some of the software modules of the supervisor procedure do not define one control relationship between the sensors and actuators.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein the build-supervisor procedure does not allow data corresponding to the new user input to be actively accessed by the supervisor procedure until a validation run has been performed. , system.

3. The system of claim 2, wherein the controller is a recursive procedure and the supervisor procedure is also a recursive procedure.

3. The system of claim 2, wherein the supervisor procedure is a recursive procedure and the controller operates as a substantially real time procedure.

The system of claim 2, wherein only limited portions of the functional structures are user-modifiable.

3. The system of claim 2, wherein the user-changeable portions of the functional structures appear different to the user than other portions.

3. The system of claim 2, wherein the functional structure of the build-supervisor means has a substantially natural language format.

3. The system of claim 2, wherein the supervisor procedure also requests at least one expert subprocedure means, including one knowledge base and inference structure related to the process.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein for each of the control parameters, the supervisor procedure is constrained not to make a change unless the marker for change exceeds a certain threshold; The supervisor procedure reports every instance where it changes one control parameter.

3. The system of claim 2, wherein for each of the control parameters, the supervisor procedure is constrained not to make a change unless the amount of change exceeds a certain threshold.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein the process supervisor procedure performs at least some feedback control relationships including one deadband in each of the control parameters, and further includes one deadband in each of the control parameters. At least perform some feedback control relationship.

3. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the functional structure allows a user to define timing and sequencing parameters for each of the modules, the modules comprising: at least: an option of reverting to active if another specified module is active; Option to be active if a new value is entered for a specified data source; Or an option that becomes active when an inactivity for one specified time elapses.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein the supervisor means has a maximum repetition time much longer than the maximum repetition time of the controller.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein the controller is an analog controller.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein said step of repeatedly operating one process supervisor procedure operates said supervisor procedure as a cyclic procedure.

3. The individual data definitions of claim 2, wherein the software, modules include points for a procedure to perform one individual correspondence and parameters to be passed to the procedure pointed (for at least some of the modules). Defined by, the method.

3. The individual data definitions of claim 2 wherein the software modules include pointers to a procedure to perform one individual function and parameters to be passed to the procedure pointed to (for at least some of the modules). The system defined by and wherein a majority of the procedures pointed to generally correspond to one of a limited number of procedure forms.

3. The data definition of claim 2 wherein the software modules include pointers to procedures to perform one individual function and parameters to be passed to the procedure pointed to (for at least some of the modules). Whereby most of the procedures pointed to generally correspond to one of a limited number of procedure forms, and at least some of the procedures pointed to generally in any of the above limited number of forms of procedure. Further comprising pointers to non-corresponding means).

3. The system of claim 2, wherein at least some of the control parameters comprise gools of at least one of the processor controllers.

3. The system of claim 2, wherein the step of providing functional structures comprises providing standardized data interface definitions, so that the user can define data having one of a plurality of predefined time characteristics.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein the functional structure includes standardized data interface definitions such that a user can specify data having one of a plurality of predefined time characteristics, wherein the predefined time characteristics are current values and times. A system that includes all of the mean values.

3. The system of claim 2, wherein the functional structure includes standardized data interface definitions such that a user can specify data from any of several different types of control systems having different respective data standards.

3. The system of claim 2, wherein the functional structure includes a defined set of standard functional control relationships and a pointer to optional user-customized programming.

3. The system of claim 2, wherein the controller and the supervisor means comprise processes running on the same computer system.

3. The system of claim 2, wherein the controller and the supervisor means are both separate parts of the same software system.

3. The system of claim 2, wherein some of the software modules of the process control procedure do not define an under control relationship between the sensors and actuators.

4. The system of claim 3, wherein the valve-supervisor procedure does not allow data corresponding to a new user input to be actively accessed by the supervisor procedure until a validity check operation is performed.

4. The system of claim 3, wherein user-changeable portions of the functional structures appear to the user differently than others.

4. The system of claim 3, wherein the functional structures have a substantially natural language format.

4. The system of claim 3, wherein the controller is an analog controller.

4. The system of claim 3, wherein said limited set of standard functional control relationships comprises feedback, feedforward, statistical filtering, and / or null control relationships.

4. The system of claim 3, wherein the controller and the supervisor procedure comprise processes running on a computer system.

4. The system of claim 3, wherein the controller and the supervisor procedure are both separate parts of the same software system.

Running a process having one or more sensors coupled to sense conditions of the process and one or more actuators bound to change the conditions of the process; Controlling one or more of said actuators with one process controller, in accordance with signals received from said sensors and in accordance with control parameters; Repeatedly operating one process supervisor procedure coupled to define the control parameters for the process controller, the process supervisor procedure comprising a plurality of software modules; Provide the authorized user with functional constructs for new software modules for the supervisor procedure and / or corresponding to the user input that generated one current module of the supervisor procedure, and to be accessed computationally by the supervisor procedure. Selectively loading user input into the functional structure; The functional structure allows a user to define timing and sequencing parameters for each of the modules, at least the modules comprising: an option to become active if another designated module is active; JobShaun is active if a new value is entered for a specified data source; Or an option that becomes active when an inactivity for one specified time elapses.

The method of claim 1, wherein the timing and sequencing parameters also provide an option to become active if one specified external event has been found to occur.

The method of claim 1, wherein loading the user input to be actively accessed by the supervisor procedure is performed only after a validity check operation is performed.

The method of claim 1, wherein the control procedure is a cyclic procedure and the supervisor procedure is also a cyclic procedure.

2. The method of claim 1 wherein said supervisor procedure of step (3) is a cyclic procedure and said control procedure operates as a substantially real-time procedure.

The method of claim 1, wherein the functional structure is technically skilled in a predetermined field but none has a substantially natural language format that can be readily understood by a user who is not necessarily fluent in computer language.

The method of claim 1, wherein only limited portions of the functional structure are user changeable.

The method of claim 1, wherein the user-changeable parts of the functional structure appear different to a user than other parts.

The method of claim 1, wherein the process supervisor procedure also requests at least one expert subprocedure, including one knowledge base and inference structure associated with the process.

The process supervisor procedure of claim 1, wherein for each of the control parameters, the process supervisor procedure is constrained so as not to make a change unless the amount of change exceeds a certain threshold. How to report all cases changing.

The method of claim 1, wherein for each of the bare parameters, the supervisor procedure is constrained not to make a change unless the amount of change exceeds any constant threshold.

The method of claim 1, wherein the supervisor procedure follows a feedback control relationship that includes one deadband in each of the control parameters, and the supervisor procedure includes one deadband in each of the control parameters. A method, followed by one feedforward control relationship.

The method of claim 1, wherein the step of repeatedly operating one process supervisor procedure comprises operating the supervisor procedure as a cyclic process.

2. The data definition of claim 1 wherein the software modules include pointers to procedures to perform one individual function and parameters to be passed to the procedures pointed to (at least for some of the modules). Defined by the method.

2. The data definition of claim 1 wherein the software modules include pointers to procedures to perform one individual function and parameters to be passed to the procedures pointed to (at least for some of the modules). The majority of the procedures defined by the points, and pointed to generally correspond to one of a limited number of procedure forms.

The data of claim 1, wherein the software, modules include pointers to procedures to perform one individual function and parameters to be passed to the procedures pointed to (at least for some of the modules). As defined by the definitions, (most of the procedures pointed to generally correspond to one of a limited number of procedure forms, and at least some of the procedures pointed to generally correspond to any of the limited number of procedure forms described above. And further includes pointers to procedures that do not).

The method of claim 1, wherein the functional structure includes standardized data interface definitions, so that a user can specify data having one of a plurality of predefined time characteristics.

The method of claim 1, wherein the functional structure includes standardized data interface definitions, so that a user can specify data having one of a plurality of predefined time characteristics, wherein the predefined time characteristics are current values and time average values. All inclusive, the method.

The method of claim 1, wherein the functional structure includes standardized data interface definitions such that the user can specify data from any of several different types of control systems having different individual data standards.

2. The system of claim 1, wherein the functional structure allows a user to define timing and sequencing parameters for each of the modules, wherein the modules are further configured to become active if one specified parameter of one low level controller changes. A method that also includes an option.

The method of claim 1, wherein the functional structure allows for user-defined timing and sequencing parameters for each of the modules, the modules also including an additional option that is activated only by a programmatic request. Way.

2. The system of claim 1, wherein the functional structure allows a user to define timing and sequencing parameters for each of the modules, wherein the software modules have an additional option of becoming active upon external switching of one designated switch system. Including, method.

The method of claim 1, wherein the functional structure comprises one standard functional control relationship selected from one very limited set and one pointer to any user-chromatized programming.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the controller and the supervisor procedure comprise processes running on the same computer system.

The method of claim 1, wherein the controller and the supervisor procedure are both separate portions of the same software system.

※ Note: The disclosure is based on the initial application.